Chattisgarh High Court
Sanjay Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 15 February, 2023
-1-
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MCRCA No. 1682 of 2022
Sanjay Sahu S/o Ravi Sahu Aged About 25 Years R/o Ward No.
19, Tumgaon Road Mahasamund, Police Station Tahsil And
District Mahasamund (C.G.) ---- Applicant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Of
Police Station City Kotwali, District Mahasamund (C.G.) (P.S.
Mahasamund Wrongly Mentioned In Annex. A-1)
---- Non-applicant
For Applicant - Shri Shikhar Sharma, Advocate.
For Non-applicant/State - Shri Jitendra Shukla, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
15-02-2023
1.This first anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the accused/applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.392/2022 registered at Police Station Civil Kotwali, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, CG for commission of offences punishable under Section 294, 506, 323, 392, 34, 427 of the IPC.
2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that, the complainant Vishnu Sahu lodged an FIR to the effect on 09/09/2022 at 10.30 p.m., when he was going to Imlibhata along with Shankar Sahu in his vehicle and when they reached near Bagga Stores, they saw that present applicant along with others were quarreling with another car owner and when the complainant objected the same, at that time the present applicant along with other co-accused abused -2- and assaulted him. It is also alleged that, during this scuffle, the complainant had lost his gold chain.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that alleged incident took place on 09/09/2022, whereas, the report was lodged on 10/09/2022 after a gap of one day. He further submits that some scuffle took place during immersion of Lord Ganesh and as such no offence under Section 392 of IPC has been committed by the present applicant and it is an afterthought because initially the FIR was lodged in which the complainant has categorically stated that during the scuffle, he lost his gold chain, thereafter, in his statement under Section 161 of CrPC he has improved the story and stated that the present applicant snatched the golden chain from his neck, which goes to show that when the offence was registered as bailable one, just to keep the applicant behind the bar and implicate him in a serious offence, offence under Section 392 of IPC was added and there is no criminal antecedent against the present applicant, therefore, applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the application for anticipatory bail and submits that initially FIR was registered for commission of bailable sections, however, on 161 Cr.P.C. statement the complainant has stated that his golden chain was snatched by the present applicant from his neck, thereafter, Section 392 of IPC was added. There is no criminal antecedent of present applicant.
5. Heard learned counsel for both sides.
-3-
6. Considering the rival submissions & from the perusal of FIR, it emerges that in FIR complainant has stated that during course of scuffle his golden chain fell down from his neck, thereafter as stated by the counsel for the State, in the statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. the complainant has stated that the present applicant has snatched golden chain from his neck, however, he fairly submits that the applicant has no criminal antecedent according to the case diary and injuries sustained by the complainant are simple in nature.
7. Looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that contents of FIR would show that initially bailable offences were registered against the present applicant and thereafter, on the strength of 161 of Cr.P.C. statement offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC has been added; further considering that there is no criminal antecedent reported against the applicant, this Court is inclined to grant benefit of Section 438 of CrPC to the applicant. Accordingly, the application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with the aforesaid offence, he shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer, on the following conditions:-
(a) he shall make himself available for interrogation by the concerned police officer as and when so required.
(b) he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person -4- acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such fact to the Court or to any police officer,
(c) he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial,
(d) After filing of the charge-sheet, he shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial,
(e) he shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future
(f) If any of the conditions is violated by the applicant, the victim / State / complainant will be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail.
It is made clear that these observations are only for the purposes of deciding the bail application. The trial Court will decide the case on its own merits without being influenced by any observation made herein-above.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha